Usually I use an on-board Realtek HD Audio sound card, but a friend of mine gave me a Creative Audigy 2 ZS sound card witch he doesn't need.
..so a nab needs your help, will the Creative sound card be better or worse then the Realtek HD audio one that comes with the main board? I'm asking because there are connectors on the Creative one that I could really put to use.
Help me out /g/
>pic related
>>51825435
The only reason I ever used a sound card was because I needed Dolby Digital Live to get the most out of a set of digital 5.1 speakers I had, and my chipset didn't support it.
Well, there was also that time in 2006 when Oblivion had a sound-clipping bug with AC97 audio.
>>51825435
it's said that onboard is more than sufficient for 99% of people these days. you'd have to be some kind of macfag audiopedophile to be able to tell the difference between onboard and a $400 add-in card.
>>51825435
If you can use it than use it. There isn't really much to say beyond that.
>>51825435
Do you really think that onboard sound implementation built into the motherboard as a 'value-add' for as little money as possible is going to compete with a sound card that sold for $99 or more?
This is audio we're talking about, not some cutting edge technology.
>>51825435
Depending on what peripherals you're using it, will probably sound the same or better.
>>51825435
External.
Internal is useless.
/thread
>>51825435
The Audigy should be a bit better
Not worth it over onboard though considering Creative's shitty drivers
>>51827411
Sometimes never used one. Even if the dacs are identical the op amps are in a different league. Plugging them into an amp now sounds far far louder and bass delivery is sharp and deep.
>>51827903
I used to think that too, but objectively it's really about the implementation details, not internal vs external. Take a look at RME's internal options and tell me internal is useless.
>>51827936
Audigy2 ZS is one of the best supported Creative cards under Linux.
If the mobo has optical or digital out then but an external amp if you're making a home theatre type set up. Otherwise use the audigy and some nice headphones
>>51827971
If you have the choice, internal has zero benefits over external, aside from space saving. If you really think you need a sound card, and you probably don't unless you create content, you need an external.
>>51825435
inside the PC there is loads of noise that Sound card will pick up.
you are better off outside DAC with AMP than internal sound card.
>>51827971
>Linux
>>51827617
>placing audio under 'nice to have'
>not under 'need to have'
if you're working on business servers maybe. anything that might ever be used on a consumer level needs to have an audio chip.
we've also reached a point were the most basic chip available suits 99.99% of all consumers.
only for encoding and audio technician level of audiophile you'd need a dedicated sound card.
>>51825435
Try it out for yourself and see.
Personally I can tell the difference with mine. It sounds 3x better than my onboard sound, at least, and has tons of other features on it. Well worth the reasonable price. Will never build a PC without a soundcard again. Just as important as a GPU imo.
Use the ZS 2 with DanielK's drivers, they're loaded with tweaks that bring it up to an X-fi feature-wise, and it sounds great too, especially if you have a receiver, since you can get a 3.5mm-to-RCA cable and connect it using digital coax
thought sound cards were memes. just got a new motherboard with some sound card in it and my beyerdynamic dt770's sound fucking insane, never heard anything better.
http://www.gigabyte.com.au/products/product-page.aspx?pid=5478#ov
>>51828111
Would you subject yourself to a blind test of this?
>>51829738
you fell for that fucking meme that's for sure
>>51829851
oh yeah
>>51828022
The only good external connection is Thunderbolt and it's not always available.
PCI and PCIe are way better than USB for audio.
>>51828029
>inside the PC there is loads of noise that Sound card will pick up.
This does not happen with any decent sound card.
>>51825435
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high-end-pc-audio,3733-6.html
Someone actually compared the $2 RealTek ALC889 onboard codec from a random motherboard vs a $2000 audiophile system, and a couple of sane alternatives in between. One golden-eared listener could tell the difference, the other golden-eared listener couldn't.
If you have a use for the extra I/O options on the Audigy, use it and enjoy the outputs. You probably won't be able to tell the difference in a blind A/B setting, but even if you can, the real difference - that you can definitely detect - is the world in which having some gear and not having a place to plug it in, versus having some gear and being able to use it.
>>51830319
Poor testing IMO. The biggest difference with onboard audio is it pops and clicks when you move your mouse around and connect/disconnect USB devices and run demanding games or benchmarks.
Depends on your onboard, this is mine, has possibly the worst sound I've ever heard. A VIA VT2012 sound chip, it sounds flat on all bass frequencies and highs are far to punchy. Friend bought a Asus Xonar that he ended up not needing so I bought it off him, and it is a huge difference.
>>51830377
Sounds like whatever you're using is defective.
>>51830443
I've been working with PCs for 14 years and this is a common issue with onboard, especially if you have sensitive IEMs.
>>51825435
On board is just fine, but if you want to plug it in for the hell of it, go right ahead. You don't need to make a thread about it. I use an external only for producing and mixing music. My living room pc uses on board and sounds great going through an onkyo reciever.
>Pic related
My external
Id like to get cmss3d on my pc but have no slots for a sound card. Anyone could suggest a good usb sound card or is something like sbx pro studio a good option for positional audio and virtual surround?
>i got a sound card because it was an inexpensive amp
>also boosts FPS in games
i did a blind test with a pair of M50x once at my buds studio
i got 8/8 right. it makes a pretty crazy difference
>>51825435
Video card is best sound card.
Sends audio digitally over HDMI or DisplayPort to whatever screen/TV you happen to use at the time.
How is it not perfect?
>>51831936
This. Everyone criticizing sound card wither has. . .
>never tried one back to back with onboard sound
>and or used shitty speakers/headphones
>did all the above and is too retarded to notice the difference
Forming a palet with sounds is just like forming one with visuals and taste. When we are born are brain has to develope and process images. Same when we are trying new foods and end up liking "sophisticated" tastes. Some people never develop these senses that well and the same goes for sound.
We call these people plebs and retards.
>>51832025
>Forming a palet with sounds
Kill yourself faggot.
>>51831936
>i did a blind test with a pair of M50x
>m50x
not even once
>>51825435
I have that exact card pictured. I cant get half the functions to works because the drivers are so damn old.
>>51827617
>a business would never sell something useless for an obscene markup to the uninformed!
...Yes, yes it would, actually... and it does.
>>51832611
Do you think that $99 is an obscene price for a sound card? I bet that just the components on a SB Audigy2 would cost around $10 (let alone R&D, and all the other costs around selling a product successfully).
Do you really think a normal mainstream motherboard is going to have $10 worth of components dedicated to audio when the entire board is SELLING for $80-100 to the end user?
Plus, look at just the square inches of board space required for the Audigy2 ZS implementation. Good luck finding space for all those components in an onboard implementation.
>>51832760
Creative Labs plz
People have wanted soundcards for 30 years and China solved the problem a long time ago with AC97 and then HD Audio standard.
Headphones are the same. There are a lot of generic/off-brand earbuds and DJ phones that sound as good as Sennheiser but no one will admit it.
>>51832837
China? Intel created those standards, but they really have nothing to do with audio quality - there's no requirement for signal-to-noise ratio in either standard, for instance.
>>51828256
THIS. I still use an Audigy2 ZS in my main rig and the output sounds much better than any integrated solutions I have tried through numerous motherboard upgrades.
I originally bought this card when the first Athlon 64 processors were released and its still going strong.
>>51832965
>stupid white person not knowing what acronyms mean
>AC97 = Audio Ching-chong 97: to celebrate return of Hong Kong from British, PRC liberates soundcard colony from motherboard everywhere
>HD Audio = Hong Dong Audio: man named Hong Dong come up with. Simple. "High definition" is western ret-con word imperialism to besmirch great achievements prc
>>51832965
>>51833083
China implemented them with $2 chips that perform as well as your bullshit snake oil card.
There's a Toms Hardware article about it. Google it and don't waste money like a consumer sheep next time.
the main reason i got my soundblaster zx is i can hear a slight bit of static with most onboard cards and the other non shielded cars i had before
>>51833269
my onboard is shielded, and has a built in amp.
>>51832837
Honestly, onboard sound peaked with the godly Soundstorm Nforce chipsets, and after those happened, it's either the standard "HD" Realtek or Intel things for any given board
I'm using a ZS 2 now, and can easily recommend tracking one down and using the modded drivers, which are a fuckton better than Realtek drivers any day of the week, plus you get all the original ZS 2 features when it was at it's peak in XP, and a great EAX wrapper for old vidya, along with a lot of X-fi stuff ported over to the Audigy family (Crystalizer, headphone surround options, etc.), and you get both analog and a digital output that can bitstream
Hardware wise, I've yet to notice any interference or whine that likes to plague especially-shitty onboard audio, it's SNR beats the shit out of any onboard audio
This goes for really any one of the high-end EMU10K2 cards - baseline Audigy, the ZS 2 family, and the high-end Audigy 4's
>>51833205
Yeah, so what, I just solder the chip on?
All sound chips are $2 in quantity. It's the implementation, peripheral components (such as relays, capacitors, jacks), driver development, and support that make a sound card cost $50.
>>51833421
>nForce Godly
Except the audio fails after a few years, in my experience.
>>51830538
>traktor
U a DJ m8?
>>51833205
>buys souncard
>uses it for over 10 years
>consumer sheep
I still use the my sound card, which was the first to have DTS Connect/DD Live. Almost 10 years from 2006 now.
>>51833421
Forgot
http://danielkawakami.blogspot.com/
But while I'm at it, if you buy this stuff:
https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=2680
https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=7146
You get a multichannel digital coax output that any decent receiver will take, coming from the cards 3.5mm digital out. I'm using it with some high-end (in 2008) Sony receiver, and it beats the shit out of any AIO speaker setup I've owned in the past
Although as far as AIO speakers go, Creative's used to be pretty good, I used the Inspire 2.1's from 2001 to 2009 without any problem, they managed to consistently sound nice
are there any good over the ear headphones worth getting that won't break the bank ? I missed the amazon sale on the 598s :(
>>51833732
https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=8323
>>51833732
Takstar 80s aka Gemini HSR1000s aka HyperX Clouds
>>51825435
whatever you do, just don't double amp
